Jim Barfield, leader of the 'Copper Scroll Project,' testing a metal detector in preparation for his search for the treasures of the Copper Scroll.

the following is a transcript of this week’s (august 23, 2009) ‘weekend edition‘ on arutz sheva’s israel national radio. host tamar yonah interviewscopper scroll project director jim barfield. you can download an mp4 version of the interview to listen along while you read the transcript here.

i shall comment further on this matter tomorrow. for now, here’s what jim barfield told tamar yonah.

=== BEGIN TRANSCRIPT ===

0:05 [Tamar Yonah]: Well can you imagine what would happen if in this secular new world order-type world that we live in, a world where we’re supposed to be so enlightened and religion is old hat and old fashioned and primitive, what would happen if, just if, the Bible was proven to be true? What would happen if the Ark of the Covenant and treasures from the First and Second temple were discovered? Well, we have with us joining us now, Jim Barfield, and Jim is the Director of the Copper Scroll Project. And you can go to his website while we’re doing this interview and check it out, it’s called, it’s at www dot copper hyphen scroll hyphen project dot com. Copper Scroll Project with a hyphen in between each word. Copper Scroll Pa-, Project dot com. And you can go there and look at some of the, um, things that he’s done so far in trying to do an archaeological dig, to try to find th-, the treasures that the Copper Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls is telling everybody maybe where these treasures are. Here to tell us more about that we have again joining us Jim Barfield. Hi there, Jim.

1:22 [Jim Barfield]: Good morning, Tamar. Good afternoon for you guys.

1:25 [Yonah]: Good- good afternoon t-, or good morning to you I should say. You’re out, uh, in the southwest United States where you reside, you are… describe yourself as I know you personally as a, as a Noahide, someone who believes in the Torah and the authenticity of it, and you believe, as, uh, your profession was before – you were a detective, uh, you were able to, uh, find out how, you- you were a detective actually for the fire department, you would find out how fires were started, if it was started purposely or not, you knew how to look at a situation, how to break it down, what questions to ask, where to look, and you’ve done that with your religious beliefs as well, and you have looked at the Copper Scroll and you think you might know where the treasures of the Temple are. First, before we go into your story, describe to our listeners what exactly the Copper Scroll is, and again, www copper dash scroll dash project dot com. Go ahead.

2:22 [Barfield]: “Well, with, first of all [coughs], excuse me, I’m not, I’m not a Noahide, I’m just a, uh, gentleman, uh, I keep Torah as best I can and I’m learnin’ from that direction, but what the Copper Scroll is, the Copper Scroll is a, literally, a copper document that was, uh, that is about seven feet long, about a foot wide, and it’s it literally made out of copper. The thing lists, uh, probably something around sixty different hoards of gold, silver, gems, but, uh, the gold and the gems, Tamar, they’re not, they’re not what’s important. You’ve, you have said what’s most important. The most important thing is that these, there are, there’s a potential that vessels from the Tabernacle, possibly from the Temple, uh, there are other religious items, uh, directly connected apparently with the, uh, with the Temple itself and with the, uh, nation of Israel. Those are the things that are the most valuable and those are the things that we are hoping to find. But, uh, it, it appears that the scroll, uh, was, uh written sometime around the time of Jeremiah.”

[Long Pause]

3:33 [Yonah]: And tell us this, just the quick background on how the scroll was discovered.

3:39 [Barfield]: The scroll was, uh, it was fou-, discovered actually in 1952. It was one of the only, uh, Dead Sea Scrolls that was found, uh, by a legitimate, uh, sanctioned, uh, archaeological dig or search through the caves at the, in the area of Qumran. Those, uh, ehh, the, the scroll, a-again…, it uh… the main thing about the scroll is, is what eh, the people need to understand is, these, these items are of such important value to the nation of Israel, that uh, they, they hold… a, a really important, uh… they’re just an really important religious aspects that are gonna be tied with this, but, uh, they, it was found in 1952, and again it’s the only one that was one found, eh, by a legitimate research from with archaeologists.

4:33 [Yonah]: Alright, and you, um, your background is you’re, you are somebody who questions things, and wants to understand and then come to a conclusion. So, I kinda gave a background of what you did, but, but give us your background in your own words, and how did you figure out, uh, what you think is the truth to the, the, uh, Copper Scroll – the secret that it holds there – that has been, uh, eluding scholars for, f- uh, ab- ’bout 57 years now.

5:01 [Barfield]: Eh, well, th-the… my background, I am not an archaeologist, I want people to understand that very clearly. I’m not an archaeologist. I’m not a historian. I’m simply, a, uh, gentleman from Oklahoma that has figured out the Copper Scroll. Uh, my background as an investigator, I won Oklahoma “Investigator of the Year,” I won “International Investigator of the Year,” so I’m pretty good at what I do as far as investigations go. But, uh, to be very honest with ya, Tamar, it’s, there’s more to it than that. The, uh, the Copper Scroll is not something that someone can come in and just figure out, uh… i- in the length of time it took me to figure it out was just incredible. It was amazing how soon and how quickly I figured this thing out, so, sometimes, and I’m, I’m gonna be real honest with ya, I’m gonna give ya the non-political, uh, answer to this, or a, the politically incorrect answer: I believe at times that the Father allowed me to see these things and, and the only way we’re ever gonna know whether that’s true or not, is if the Israeli government continues with an archaeological dig that we’ve started in April, and let’s see if these items are there… ah, eh… So my background, I’m not an archaeologist, I’m not, ahh, I’m not trained in this field, but I am good at investigation and that’s what I did is I applied investigative techniques to look at the Copper Scroll to determine whether or not, ehem, I could figure this thing out. And with the, within just a short period of time, I actually, eh, I absolutely believe that I did and everyone that has seen my research, believes that I have figured it out as well. There’s been guys – rabbis, uh, even ehh, some, uh, very important people in the I… in, uh, Israeli Antiquities Authority and I’m gonna refer to them as the I.A.A., they have seen it and they trusted my research enough that they actually have started looking at the site where I believe that these items are at.

7:00 [Yonah]: All right. You’re all the way in Oklahoma, and… you are retired now, as you said, correct?

7:06 [Barfield]: Yes, I am retired.

7:07 [Yonah]: And uh, you, so, how did you do- how did you do this? Did you have… you didn’t have the Copper Scroll in front of you, so how were you able to look at the Copper Scroll – the writings there – and figure out what the code was there that, that makes you think that you have discovered where these treasures lie?

7:22 [Barfield]: Initially, I utilized a, uh, translation by a gentleman by the name of Martinez. Uh… he’s um, he is qualified to do translations, I am not. I’m not qualified to do the translation for… And I used the first five of his translation to actually determine where these items are located at. Eh, at first, ’cause I began, I was, I looked at it and I thought, ehh, as I found the first one, the second one, the third one, I thought this is far too easy, it, it’s, this can’t possibly be, because it, after all these years, it would, I would think that the archaeologists or the historians, whoever has looked at this document would have figured this out, but it’s so simple. Sometimes I think that they have overlooked the simple things and, and tried to make it far more complicated than what it is. The, the scroll appears, eh it, to those that are trying to translate it, it appears like these items are scattered all over Israel, and, Tamar, they’re just not. They’re actually located in one location.

8:27 [Yonah]: And can you tell us where that location is?

8:29 [Barfield]: I’d be, honestly, I’m reluctant, but I’m going to. Ah…yer geh, yours is the first program that, uh, I’ve actually decided to release this information. All of the items are located in one location, and all of the, l- locations described on the Copper Scroll except for about four of them, which are so rotted away ya, you can’t tell where they’re at, uh, or it’s difficult to determine where they’re at, all of the descriptions on the Copper Scroll match a location, uh, which is actually a national park for you guys, is in Qumran near the Dead Sea.

9:04 [Yonah]: OK, so everybody listening, don’t get your shovels out and go running over there, because you can’t go dig on a property you don’t own, and uh, this is uh, anyway, this section is marked out for archaeologists, uh, right now, legally, i understand, and uh, they are the only ones who are allowed to dig there. So, you came to Israel, Jim, uh, again we’re speaking with Jim Barfield, he’s the director of the Copper Scroll Project, you can go to his website and see what he’s talking about at www dot copper dash scroll dash project dot com, copper scroll project with a hyphen in between each word dot com. Uh, the copper scrolls you believe have, uh, in it, a hidden secret as to where, uh, the treasures from the Temple are, gold, uh, the, the temple utensils, including, you believe, the Ark of the Covenant.

9:55 [Barfield]: It’s very possible. The, uh, the writing on the Copper Scroll matches that of Second Maccabees, uh, I believe second chapter of Second Maccabees, and it gives the same description that is actually on the la- the last location of the Copper Scroll. Now, eh, understand this, here’s, here’s one of the ways that I did this. I utilized the first five locations, and they are very easily identified on the Copper Scroll at Qumran. Those five locations match up so incredibly well, it’s just… after the first, I- I show this to whoever – doesn’t matter – after I show them my research, they look at that, they just slap their foreheads and say, “Oh my gosh, this is so simple,” and it really is. But then when you look at the last five locations on the Copper Scroll, they do something very interesting. There were four men that wrote on the Copper Scroll. You can see the handwriting. You can see changes in the handwriting where the next guy takes over and starts. The last five actually line up in a perfectly straight line ascending uphill. And they, it appears that whoever wrote this was telling whoever figured it out in the, vastly diff- distant future, if you can just find these first, these last five, they will point you to the most important location of all, that’s the cave. Now the cave…

11:15 [Yonah]: That’s what it says in there? That’s what it says in there? That’s what you read, when you, when you read it?

11:20 [Barfield]: [Laughs.] No, no no no. It doesn’t say, “If you do this…’

11:23 [Yonah]: Uh huh.

11:24 [Barfield]: It literally, you, you have to identify the locations, which is relatively simple once you figure out how to understand the Copper Scroll. They, this, the i- the locations line up in a perfectly straight line. Now here’s what I did: I identified the first, second, third, and fourth, and I, I took a, uh, satellite map, took a nee-, took a pin, a needle and I poked holes in this satellite map for each one of them. And then I drew a line through each one and they lined up in uh, like I said in a perfectly straight line, and they crossed over a location that I had already identified utilizing only the description on the Copper Scroll. Lori and I, my wife and, uh, and I, went to the location, uh, testing to make sure that all the information that I was looking at was correct, and the description led me to a point very near Qumran, and there eh, was a, it, and you can see a place that very much looks like the opening of a, uh, where a cave used to be. Of course remember now, it’s been buried. Not only does it, it’s described that way in Second Maccabees, but it’s also described that way on the Copper Scroll. It [coughs] is an entrance that is in buried, so that’s ho-, that’s how I know this. That all of those in between, now remember there’s approximately sixty locations, there’s, uh, fifty more that can be easily identified within the building complex of Qumran.

12:52 [Yonah]: Hmm. All right, so, uh, I have interviewed before, a few years back, someone very famous as well, his name is Vendyl Jones, he’s the head of the Noahide movement, he’s an archaeologist at- uh, a well-known archaeologist, and he said on this show that he was going to be the one to find the Ark of the Covenant. He was sure he would find it within a year. Uh, a year’s gone by. Another year’s gone by, and, uh, nothing doing there. Um, are you involved at all, uh, with Vendyl Jones and his project?

13:21 [Barfield]: No, I, eh, no I’m not. Uh, Vendyl, Vendyl and I have talked about my research and he very much likes my research, but, he is not at all associated with the Copper Scroll Project. He wa-, he and his wife invited, uh, me and my family to his home, ehem, spent the weekend with him, had a great time – they’re wonderful people – but he is a, he’s not involved and I’m not involved in his research either. His, his descriptions or determinations where these items are at are very different from mine.

13:51 [Yonah]: Didn’t he think it was in approximately the same place as, uh, where you’re looking as well though?

13:56 [Barfield]: Yes, he, uh, his location, he calls it the Cave of the Column, is about, uh, I’m gonna say about a half mile away from, uh, the Qumran complex, the actual buildings of Qumran.

14:06 [Yonah]: Mm hmm. And some of the reasons that they believe that this could be at Qumran is because weren’t there underneath the Temple secret tunnel passageways that led out from Jerusalem to that area and that’s where, when the Romans came in and were, er, I shouldn’t say the Romans, the Babylonians, came in, uh, to take over Israel, that the quickly took away the Ark and some of the treasures and they’ve took them possibly through these tunnels and hid them away?

14:33 [Barfield]: That’s possible, uh…, it, I’d, I’d think it’d be, I think it’d be incredibly difficult to do that, carrying such an important holy artifact, through a caves, but, uhh, eeh, from what I understand that, that is possible, and for goodness sakes you know as well as I do, Israel has got more caves than, uh, than rocks practically, and they got plenty of rocks.

14:53 [Yonah]: Mmm. So, so tell us about your research and where, and, uh, and where you are now. Now, you’ve already gotten, uh, the permission, and, and, uh, f- from the Israeli government to work with Israeli archaeologists who thought you may have the key, that’s why they are interested in it, they’ve looked at it, these are professionals, and they think it has some merit to it and that’s why they have let you come here and start digging with an Israeli archaeologist, to see if you can find something. So tell us where that’s going right now. So the s-, I just wanna, the-, the-, the point I’m making here is that the Israeli government has seen your work and they are interested enough in it that they believe in it enough that it might be true that they are cont-, uh, letting permission of, uh, a permit to go there and dig for it. So tell us how far you’ve gotten so far.

15:39 [Barfield]: Yes, uh, in my, what I, what I would like everybody to understand is that they, they went out of their way, and I deeply respect, uh, the guys at the I.A.A., that have, that have, uh, taken the time to go check and see if my research is, is correct. The only problem is this, Tamar: when we dug at the locations, uh, the archaeologist was actually, an, uh, a member of the I.A.A. staff, we only went a fraction, a ridiculously shallow level to test to see if the items are actually still there. Had we gone deeper, who knows what would happen. I can tell you this: I’ve, I’ve broken the code on the Copper Scroll, but I cannot tell you that the, those items are still there. Uh, in, in, the I.A.A. saw my research, and they too saw the merit, uh, that the possibility that I broke the ca- code was, uh, relatively high. So, they actually went out and, uh, they obtained the permits, of course, they own the property so for goodness sakes they can do pretty much what they want, but they got the proper permits and they were in charge. All I did was provided the information and the research that show them where we should dig and, eh, how deep we should go, but they, they stopped, like I said, Tamar, at a ridiculously shallow level, otherwise I think we could have possibly found something.

16:59 [Yonah]: So how does that make you feel? Do you think that the Israeli government is worried and maybe doesn’t want to find anything because isn’t this land, uh, land that, uh, the international community wants to see go to-, towards a Palestinian state, and maybe the Israeli government is worried that the, uh, Musli-, Muslim states, this future possible Muslim state would get their hands on it and perhaps destroy it like they destroyed artifacts on the Temple Mount?

17:24 [Barfield]: You know what, that’d be- what I won’t do is I, I won’t try to second guess why that we stopped at that shallow level, and, eh, I can’t speculate on what they’re thinkin’, but I can tell you this: that, if indeed these items are there, and because they, the, uh, the research is so compelling, I think – I know that we need to go in there and test, and a test would be relatively simple. Let’s go test. Let’s see if these items are there, and then we will know, and, it-, because if, if in fact some kind of a ridiculous two state solution were to come about, it would, it’s bad enough to be givin’ away the land of Israel, but for goodness sakes, let’s don’t give away the treasures that belong to Israel as well, that’s, that would be, ehh, tha-, it’s just-, nothing that could be worse. Ahh, well, ya there is, but doggonnit, let’s try a test and see if these things are there and let’s get ’em secured and back into the hands of the Israelis. And, here’s, here’s my thoughts: the government of Israel is, is not qualified, uhhhh, they’re not qualified to handle these items, by Torah, by, by Scripture, that they must be handled by men that are priests. They must, these men, these things must be handled by people that are qualified, and the Torah gives you the, the information on how these things should be handled. So, there’s, there’s organizations already established in Israel that I feel should be the ones that, uh, actually get control these items if, in fact, they are found. Uhh, you know as well as I do that, uh, there are some, uh, well-established organizations that are trained and are training to handle these items so, eh, that’s one thing I wanted to make sure to say today.

19:06 [Yonah]: Like the Temple Institute? Like the Temple Institute?

19:10 [Barfield]:Exactly, like the Temple Institute.

19:11 [Yonah]: OK, when you talk about priests, you’re talking about Jewish priests, like the cohanim, the, the cohens?

19:15 [Barfield]: The cohanim, yes.

19:16 [Yonah]: OK.

19:16 [Barfield]: Only the cohanim, only the ones that are qualified by the Torah.

19:19 [Yonah]: I hear. All right. We only have about two minutes left in the in the interview and I have another couple of questions so I’m going to try and keep this brief. So, wh-, where does the work stand now? How are you gonna cont-, are you gonna continue looking? I mean they dug a little bit and then you’re back in Oklahoma now, and what’s going on? Is this gonna continue or is it just gonna sit there?

19:34 [Barfield]: Ya, mayb-, [gasp] I had to leave Israel, other way-, otherwise I would have stayed. I had some, there was some storms here in Oklahoma dest-, that destroyed practically my garage I had to get home to repair it. But I’m hopin’ that the Israelis that there are working with me – the guys at the I.A.A. – will continue to work with me, and, eh, try to get these things out, and, it’s, it’s not a re-, for me, it’s not a religious, however it is a religious im-, regi-, religiously important, it’s important to get these things out of the ground, so I’m hopin’ that they will, will contact me again and will follow through with the archaeological dig that’s already started. If they’ve gone to that much trouble to begin to search and look, let’s finish this thing. And that’s, that’s one of the things that, uh, I had hoped to get out to your audience, the Israelis, is, doggonnit, we’ve started, let’s finish this thing.

20:21 [Yonah]: All right. And when, the reason that you’re coming on this show and talking about this now is because you don’t really care about being a treasure hunter or getting any profit if any gold and silver and, and artifacts and things that can make someone a millionaire if they found it can make them, you just want the Ark found, you want the truth uncovered, and you want it to go to the proper hands of the Jewish people, the cohanim and, and the Temple Institute, and other places like that. Is that correct?

20:45 [Barfield]:You bet. I… Tamar, I got a, I got a wonderful family. We keep Shabbat. I want to continue to do that, and eh, I… honestly, when this is over with, I’m gonna sit back and, and get back to my regular research, and enjoy my life. Eh, it’s, it’s not about money. For goodness sakes, who cares about the gold and silver, but those items that belong to the Temple or the Tabernacle, those are what’s important. Those would be such a blessing to all of us, not just to Israel, to everyone that, uh, that believes in the Scriptures, it would be a blessing for all of us and that’s my goal. Simply that.

21:19 [Yonah]: And for those who don’t. ‘Cause they might start believing in it, right?

21:23 [Barfield]:There ya go. That would, that would be a blessing as well.

21:24 [Yonah]: One last question, and we have to keep this brief; we only have about, uh, sixty seconds left. Uh, what are we talking about when you talk about gold and silver, what, what amount are we talking about here?

21:35 [Barfield]: Uh, the, the precious metals, probably somewhere around three billion dollars in gold and silver. The gems, honestly…

21:39 [Yonah]: Three billion dollars in gold and silver hidden?

21:42 [Barfield]: Three, Three billion. Yeah, An-, and, but the gol-, uh, the gems I think, Tamar, would dwarf that. I think the gems would be worth far more than that.

21:51 [Yonah]: The gems.

21:52 [Barfield]: Yeah.

21: 53 [Yonah]: Wow! Wow! This is amazing stuff. All right, so, uh, so, next, next step. You have thirty seconds. Next step. So what’s the next step now?

22:03 [Barfield]: Next step? Uh, we, we got, uh, some other people that are, that are wanting to interview me to, because they found out about this and they realize the potential. Ah, I’m trying to get the information out to Israel and I’m hopin’ the Israeli government, I’m gonna try to contact them again, uh, and see if they will follow through with this archaeological dig or excavation, and let’s check to see if those things still remain at, at the site that I’m talkin’ about.

21:28 [Yonah]: Ah, Jim Barfield, ah, that would be great if we found this stuff. Jim Barfield is the Director of the Copper Scroll Project, www dot copper, and then a hyphen, scroll, another hyphen, project dot com. Go and look up what he’s doing and let’s hope that, uh, we find, uh, these treasures and the holy Ark. That would be fantastic. The Messiach – the Messiah – would come huh? Everybody would realize that the Bible’s true and turn, turn their ways to the good. Thanks for being with us.

Hey, thousands of reputable scientists believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, & so on back to lifeless minerals billions of years ago, so why not “three billion dollars in gold and silver”? At least Barfield has a genuinely ancient copper scroll to point to; evolutionists have nothing but circular reasoning.

actually, it’s quite the reverse. scientists have more evidence then they need to establish a detailed theory of evolution based upon natural selection, species specific adaptation, and physical science. the only piece of ‘evidence’ that does not support human evolution is the bible. all other data points to gradual human evolution over millions of years.

it is barfield that lacks evidence. he has a copper scroll that he cannot read and a theory based upon multiple theories that no scholar accepts.

Actually, it’s quite the reverse. Evolution’s fatal flaw is failure to recognize design limitations in the genetic code (inconceivable in Darwin’s day), which stems from failure to acknowledge a Designer in the first place. Humans can jump a few feet at best. There is no barrier preventing them from jumping higher, which is analogous to Evolution stating there is no limit to beneficial mutations. However, fleas were designed to also jump a few feet. Relative to their height, it’s the equivalent of a human jumping over the Washington Monument. If you believe a human will ever evolve to that ability, then you’re no different from the average Joe seeing a picture of Barfield with Hanan Eshel on his website & believing he has some archeological credibility.

That you would even point to Natural Selection to aid your theory shows you don’t fully understand it, since NS can only select from something that already exists; it has no ability to create something. Obviously a partially formed wing would be of no natural advantage to an already fully functioning fish, reptile, or mammal, so it would not be selected. At least Barfield admits his limitations (i.e., not being an archaeologist, historian, qualified, trained, etc.).

But at least we agree that the Holy Bible does not support the concept of Human Evolution!

your reasoning on this issue is circular. how can there be design limitations in genetic code, when genetic code is responsible for all life, not just the lives of humans? humans only jump a few feet at best because it has not been selectively advantageous for us to be jumpers. humans developed increased mental capacities, while kangaroos and fleas did not.

for the record, natural selection does not select for, it selects against. natural selection causes death, not life. how the first ‘living’ things came to be is a different issue. but once simple cells started reproducing, natural selection drove their development. and natural selection it is not an organism, as if it had a conscience, but a process, like gravity. gravity the word we use to describe the force that pulls objects towards one another (in the case of earth, us towards the earth). scientists still aren’t sure exactly ‘how’ it works (there are competing theories), or even ‘why’ it happens, we only know ‘that’ it happens. natural selection should be understood in the same way. it happens, the question is why and how.

but the burden is not on science; it has produced its data. the burden is on fundamentalists who insist upon reading the biblical accounts literally. they must reconcile contradictory accounts. for instance, were humans created at the same time (gen 1:27), or was adam created first, and eve from him (gen 2:7, 21-22)? were humans created after the rest of creation (gen 1:26-27), or before it (gen 2:4-5)? how many animals were on the ark? one pair of each (gen 6:19) or seven pairs of clean and one pair of unclean (gen 7:2)? did god’s angels really sleep with humans to form ancient giants (gen 6:2)?

as you will note, biblical scholars have noticed these issues and dealt with them for centuries. you simply cannot read the primordial history of the bible literally. they were pre-scientific attempts to describe the world around them, and god’s presence in it.

we do agree: the bible does not support the concept of evolution, nor of inter-racial marriage, nor the abolition of slavery, nor the equality of women, nor the condemnation of genocide. yet, modern folks have progressed, and we read these passages differently than we did hundreds of years ago. but you’re right, the bible does not support evolution; it supports two accounts of creation.

now, why you are attempting to the amateur forays of a fire investigator into archaeology to a debate on evolution is beyond me, but neither the biblical accounts of creation (yes, there are two) nor jim barfield have any credible scientific evidence, and there exists a mountain of data to the contrary. in fact, see my new essay on the bible and interpretation website: (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/cargill2_08261.shtml) entitled, “Pseudo-Science and Sensationalist Archaeology: An Exposé of Jimmy Barfield and the Copper Scroll Project.”

if you wish to believe in god, as do i, then do so. acknowledge that the bible cannot be read literally, nbor as a scientific document, and stop trying to prove the bible. faith is not called ‘fact’ for a reason.

(btw, choosing not to ‘believe’ in evolution is like choosing not to believe in ‘light’ or ‘gravity’. it happens. the question is what causes it? the greater question is: how do reconcile it with religious texts (or can we)? (btw, i do). and the ultimate question is why / does it matter?)

Thanks for your lengthy reply, Dr. Cargill! I ran out of time tonight, & want to read your referenced BibleInterp Scroll article first before replying again (something in the italicized overview is really apropos to my analogy). My initial purpose was to draw a simple analogy between the logic/attitude you expressed towards Barfield & merely hold up a mirror, not write a book. I see that you’re lost in a paradigm & can’t sort the facts from the fancy on this subject, so I’ll do my best to help you (& whoever else may be in that mirror). The analogy really is startling when you catch a glimpse of it.

i believe my response was quite direct. lost in a paradigm? can’t sort out facts?

i’m saying this: if one is going to argue that the biblical account of creation is factual, one must present evidence. one must provide evidence for one’s claim, and one must refute counter evidence.

you claimed, ‘Evolution’s fatal flaw is failure to recognize design limitations in the genetic code (inconceivable in Darwin’s day), which stems from failure to acknowledge a Designer in the first place.’
please provide evidence for this claim. please show me the design limitations in the genetic code of which you are speaking. what research? what evidence? is it published in a journal? or is your claim purely anecdotal? scientific evidence is quite consistent on the origin of species. if you wish to use the bible to counter scientific facts, you’ll need to provide some of your own.

as for the converse (the refutation of counter claims), i presented a simple set of either/or questions, based solely on claims made within the bible (no science). so, who was created first: humans or the rest of creation? how many animals were on the ark? these should be simple answers if the bible is as factual as you say it is.

but you gave no evidence, and you gave no answers. and this is my point: claims of fact require sound reasoning and evidence to support them. anyone can argue anecdotes. barfield makes many claims, yet provides no facts to back them up. he can’t even read the scroll he’s claimed to have ‘cracked.’

i’m not trying to make fun of him or you for that matter. my point is simple: if you make a claim, be prepared to back it up with evidence.

Like I said last night, I will reply to each of your points in your last 2 comments, but it will take time; you’re dishin’ it out faster than I can respond. I ask for your patience. If you have any doubt about whether I will respond, just ask Chris Heard!

I’m more than an hour over my normal bedtime after writing a 4,000-word response (before writing, I read your 5,300-word BibleInterp article, which I can briefly commend you for; I liked it).

I’d very much like to proofread my draft in the morning. If it doesn’t need any significant adjustments, I’ll post it; if I feel I can make improvements to make it more succinct/concise, I’ll post it around this time tomorrow night. Thanks in advance for your patience, & for the opportunity to have this discussion.

Sure enough, as soon as I tried to go to sleep last night, I thought of some other important points.

Since the reply is so long (I rebutted 27 specific statements you made, though several are redundant), & since I’m not sure whether your blog will reject it, I’ll give it a shot tonight, & if it all shows up in the preview awaiting moderation as usual, I’ll leave it, but if it truncates it or rejects due to length, I’ll post it elsewhere. Yahoo’s Biblicalist might be better than my blog since you may need help from others to defend your weak, irrational position. :)

i’m comfortable with where i stand. i may only have a bachelors in human physiology, but i’ve tried to keep with the field. nothing worse than a premed undergrad that chose div school over med school, right?

Okay, thanks for your patience. First I must preface all this by emphasizing that I’m not attempting to prove God or disprove any brand of Evolution. I’m merely defending my beliefs you’ve queried (which I spelled out in more detail in a self-published 400-page book a few years ago), & noting the irony of someone like yourself who can see the bogus claims of Barfield a mile away, but can’t see some of your own equally laughable claims (cf. Mat. 7:3 & Luke 6:41). So let’s go through them one by one.

1) “how can there be design limitations in genetic code, when genetic code is responsible for all life, not just the lives of humans?”

Either you misunderstood my statement, or I did not write it with enough specificity, or both. What I meant was that DNA for a human has limitations that will only allow it to produce more humans (or at least it’s scientifically logical to deduce that since there’s no record of humans producing hybrid offspring with any ape/chimp/monkey). I did not intend to imply that there was one generic genetic code that appeared on Earth billions of years ago capable of producing all life, since that would be like shooting my argument in the foot!

This, however, is a great example of why evolutionists & creationists have problems debating, because one person says one thing, & the other person interprets that within their own paradigm.

2) “your reasoning on this issue is circular”

Actually all arguments about the distant, unrepeatable past are circular. It’s just as circular for you to say that genetic code is responsible for all life, as it is for me to say a Designer built limitations into each kind of creature’s genetic code. The difference between our 2 statements is that mine follows from a logical foundation, whereas yours is arbitrary.

In other words, my argument states, “If the God of Genesis 1 is real, then it makes sense that humans produce humans, & monkeys produce monkeys.” That’s not arbitrary; it’s based on a historical document transmitted by reasonably reliable witnesses with firsthand info direct from the Designer. Yours states (& feel free to correct me), “God didn’t create the various basic kinds of animals; they’re just random variations of chemical elements that over time have changed from one physical form to another.” That’s just as arbitrary as someone saying life was seeded on Earth by aliens visiting from another place in the universe. It has no logical foundation. Sure there’s evidence you can use to support your arbitrary view (such as homology or variations in Finch beaks), but your foundation (“God didn’t create per G1”) doesn’t help you prove your point, & is therefore circular (“God didn’t create, therefore everything must’ve evolved randomly, thus proving that God didn’t create”).

By the way, I noticed that you said you believed in “god”, but since you don’t believe Genesis is a reliable historical record, you obviously don’t believe in the same one that I & Jesus Christ do. Until you show me your external source of info for your god, I’m going to assume you’ve created an idol of your own imagination, & certainly one that is irrelevant to the Evolution story preached in schools, colleges, & universities.

In fact the announcement that you believe in some “god” resembles Barfield announcing that he’s cracked a non-existent code!

Seriously, that should win Arbitrary Argument of the Year award. For such a claim to be logical & scientific, you’d have to know the entire history & ultimate destiny of humans (or any animal); however, you’re trapped in your Evolutionism paradigm, with an arbitrary foundation that the Biblical God is irrelevant & there’s no specific, ultimate purpose to anything in life. You’ve fashioned your own god as many otherwise-rational people do, but Science textbooks & journals still promote the belief that Evolution is a random, unguided, purposeless process (the silly Survival-of-the-Fittest tautology notwithstanding).

Given Evolution as a so-called fact, how would you have predicted that it would be “selectively advantageous” for one particular fish to become an amphibian, but not the other fish; & then that it would be selectively advantageous for one particular amphibian to become a reptile; & then that it would be selectively advantageous for one particular reptile to become a mammal; & then that it would be selectively advantageous for one particular mammal to return to the sea as a whale????

One good test of a genuine theory in Science is its ability to make a reliable prediction. Evolution fails that test with flying colors!

By the way, later you ask how many animals were on Noah’s ark. Did you ever ask a biology professor how many transitional animals were expected to be between each of the basic forms mentioned above, & how many pieces of fossil evidence have actually been found for each of those forms? Or did you swallow the whole “scientific” story hook, line, & sinker on pure religious faith the way some people are swallowing Barfield’s claims?

4) “humans developed increased mental capacities, while kangaroos and fleas did not”

Right now, somewhere in the world, at least one kangaroo & one flea are laughing at your statement. I can’t prove this, but at least I’m not pretending to know the entire history & destiny of all kangaroos & fleas; just what one each is doing at this particular moment. Now whose statement is more ridiculous, or less likely?

(Note: The count varies depending on whether you allow Google’s default of 10 responses or 100, but I think these numbers make a more eloquent rebuttal to your statement than I can!)

6) “natural selection causes death, not life.”

Yes, so I think you’re beginning to see a problem with your beloved “theory” here! If it causes death, then what causes life, & even more importantly, what causes incomprehensibly complex genetic information? (You have the right to remain silent, because anything you say will contradict what you & your fellow Darwinists have already said, which is about par for the course when an evolutionist attempts to think critically about ideas they’ve been force-fed in our lopsided educational system.)

7) “once simple cells started reproducing”

Are you trying to compete with Grimm? You have no scientific evidence for “simple” cells. Not one shred! Everything in the fossil record equals or surpasses the so-called simplest living cell known today, billions of years down your imaginary yellow-evolutionary-brick-road.

“Simple” cells are a myth. A complete fairytale from beginning to end. That they ever “started reproducing” is a myth based on a myth! Don’t you think it’s a little odd that they’re often called “simple” even though no scientific institution with no number of PhD’s with no amount of money in the year 2009 is able to claim they’ve even scratched the surface on being able to fabricate a self-sustaining, self-reproducing living “simple” cell?

I don’t mind you believing in any fairytale you (or any PhD) can imagine, but I see myself as a football referee who is obligated to throw a penalty flag when you attempt to interject nonsense as a fact. You not only have an arbitrary foundation for your belief system, you have non-facts to back it up. I don’t blame you, however, since that’s what you were force-fed by equally brain-chained people with PhD’s.

8) “we only know ‘that’ [gravity] happens. natural selection should be understood in the same way”

Natural Selection is nice way of understanding speciation & adaptation. Creationists & evolutionists agree on this. Where we differ is when we talk about what might possibly happen, or have happened, over incomprehensibly long periods of time, which continues my earlier point: Creationists believe God designed each kind of animal with a limited variability in its genetic code. Evolutionists believe the sky’s not even the limit!

Stardust formed rocks, minerals from rocks formed “simple” cells, cells became humans. Those are arbitrary assumptions. If you believe a god of your own imagination guided it, that’s an arbitrary assumption too. Someone else could just as easily say stardust did NOT form rocks, or some Flying Spaghetti Monster formed the rocks. The difference between us is that I have a logical, non-arbitrary foundation: Genesis.

No, actually I’m not obligated to reconcile a seemingly contradictory translation of an ancient language into a modern language. That was never my point in this entire discussion with you. But just to tease you, you can’t demonstrate that any so-called contradictory account was actually intended by the ancient writer(s) in their own language!

I understand & agree with you that those translations are justifiable based on our limited knowledge of the ancient languages, but I (& most criminal-court judges would) disagree with you, in that contradictory accounts do not necessarily invalidate the basic story; in fact, in some cases they substantiate the claims because not every person experiences/absorbs the same “facts” the same way, because they’ve lived different life-experiences, & have varying abilities to recall images from their memory. If all witnesses were able to recount every detail of a particular incident the same way, it would be extremely likely that they fabricated & rehearsed their story.

I would also agree with you that fundamentalists are somewhat inconsistent on their doctrine of Inerrancy, which is why I don’t subscribe to it, & don’t technically qualify as a fundamentalist, despite the fact that I believe the overall history recorded in the Holy Bible.

11) “you simply cannot read the primordial history of the bible literally.”

Sure I can. God created all the basic things in 6 days, & stopped creating/forming them on the 7th. God gave Adam freedom with limitations. Adam F’d up. Adam’s descendants really F’d up big time. God wiped the slate almost entirely clean with a global flood, saving one small family & all the basic kinds of land creatures (including dinosaurs). Every piece of theoretically available scientific evidence supports this primordial history, so I have no problem believing it.

When I hear people talk about “simple” cells, I laugh because there’s no evidence to support such a crazy idea. It was okay for relatively ignorant scientists in the 19th century to believe cells were basically unorganized jelly, but now we know they’re complex factories with microscopic, state-of-the-art machines. Hello Jehovah! Goodbye Darwin!

If a cell were actually simple, it would be capable of neither sustaining itself nor reproducing itself.

12) “they were pre-scientific attempts to describe the world around them, and god’s presence in it.”

Again, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want with your arbitrary, illogical foundation, for which there is relatively little scientific evidence (no “simple” cells, Natural Selection only causes death, etc.); however, the Holy Bible was here long before you, & will remain long after you. The Holy Bible is the only bandwagon ultimately worth jumping on. It’s unfortunate when a creature like you creates his own creator. So illogical. Particularly in a paradigm of a random process like Evolution. No wonder you’re so confused!

13) “we do agree: the bible does not support the concept of evolution, nor of inter-racial marriage, nor the abolition of slavery, nor the equality of women, nor the condemnation of genocide.”

Whoa horsie!!! We need some clarification for the things you listed after the word “evolution”!

Given the assumption that all humans came from Adam & Eve, & more precisely from Noah’s small family, Gen 1:28 & 9:1 apply to all humans, whereas the later law forbidding Israelites to intermarry with other people is a separate issue intended to preserve one special genetic line. There are no “races”. That’s another concept that (up-to-date) evolutionists & creationists agree upon. In fact we also agree that all humans can be traced back scientifically ONLY about 6,000 years through mitochondrial DNA to a single woman. So your “inter-racial marriage” canard is way outdated!

Furthermore, in Christ Jesus there is “neither Jew nor Greek”.

While I agree there is no commandment to abolish slavery, there was a law for the Israelites to release slaves, or at least give them the opportunity to leave after a certain number of years. And there are plenty of commandments to “love thy neighbor”, & a really cool one about forgiving each other before we ask God to forgive us. On a humorous note, I could introduce you to a bunch of labor-union employees in the aerospace industry who believe they’re no better off than slaves! Nearly everybody who needs to pay bills is a slave to some form of work. What’s given slavery a really bad name is the publicity from examples of very bad slave owners.

Furthermore, in Christ Jesus there is “neither bond nor free”.

I think/hope you & I agree that men & women are biologically different (i.e., not equal), with different roles. However, Gen 2:21-2 is very precise in recording that God formed the first woman from Adam’s side, not from his head nor from his foot! Side by side, they make a great pair. Jesus settled the issue with His choosing of Mary Magdalene to be the first to report His resurrection, which, if you were a Catholic, I might startle you with the suggestion that she had papal primacy over Peter (John 20:1-2).

Furthermore, in Christ Jesus there is “neither male nor female”.

Regarding genocide, while there are certain specific instances of genocide commanded by God for a specific reason, God by definition has the right to create life, & order it killed. We’re all sinners with a death sentence hanging over our heads anyway. Fortunately, the Holy Bible offers a plan of salvation for each of us, & records a general overriding principle for us, “Thou shalt do no murder [Mat 19:18].”

14) “it supports two accounts of creation”

I agree, it supports a translation of the ancient language into a modern language that can be interpreted as 2 contradictory accounts; but it also supports a harmonization of 2 separate accounts that record the same event, one being a general overview (6 days of G1), the other being a limited/focused view (primarily the creation/formation of, & interaction with, Adam & Eve in G2).

If you believe that only your interpretation can be the correct one, then you’re being arbitrary & logically inconsistent if you also believe in Evolution, because every “good” evolutionist will tell you that one of their fundamental tenets guiding their scientific philosophy is, “If it could possibly have happened naturally (e.g., the first life from non-life by random arrangement of chemicals into a ‘simple’ cell), then it must have, even if we can’t fully explain how it happened.”

So likewise, I can’t explain why the seemingly contradictory accounts (via most modern translations) appear that way, but since it’s possible that the records ultimately came from a single Source, & were transmitted & “evolved” independently over a long time by fallible humans before being joined into a single book called Genesis, that’s what I choose to believe happened. In that respect, I think just like a true-blue evolutionist!

I can’t speak for Barfield, but there is a figurative & literal mountain of evidence supporting the Genesis record, particularly the global flood. [Note: Since you stated earlier that the Bible can’t be read literally, I’m going to assume you don’t believe God destroyed a previous version of Earth with a global flood per Gen 6-9, even though you didn’t explicitly say so. (It’s hard to guess what you arbitrary, false-idol worshippers actually believe!) If my assumption is wrong, please correct me & accept my apology.]

I can dispense with the initial creation by using the same logic as any good evolutionist, who will proudly tell you that he/she doesn’t know how the first cells were formed, but that we’re here, so it must have happened, & maybe one day scientists will be able to demonstrate it for you. So I can’t prove to you that God formed Adam from the ground, & Eve from his side, but we’re here, so it must have happened, & one day Jesus will return to Earth as King of kings & explain it to you firsthand. And again, whereas evolutionists are arbitrary in their belief (because a pessimistic atheist could just as easily say scientists will NEVER figure it out), I have an overall reliable history record to base my belief upon; & unlike you creating your own god, mine was recorded independent of me before I was born.

As for the global flood, split just about any mountain & you’ll find layers of sediment formed when large bodies of water washed over the continents. You’ll even find seashells atop Mt. Everest. You, the stalwart evolutionist, arbitrarily believe continents rose & sank slowly over long periods of time allowing continental-sized floods to produce this evidence. I, the rational creationist, believe a relatively recent event of global proportions happened.

As for astronomy, scientists have taken an extremely small sample of cosmic background radiation, & concluded the universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years from a single starting point; yet the same universe is estimated at no less than 93 billion light-years across. It’s a fairly obvious problem that doesn’t get much publicity because even the best theory to explain it (Inflation) still has significant problems. Presently, it’s speculative, not scientific. Science is what we know, not what we wish we knew. It may or may not be resolved by some rational theory some day, but I’m not going to hold my breath. I have a reliable history record that states God created the heavens & the Earth at about the same time, & the stars with their light 4 days later to be seen on Earth. Ain’t no illogical 80-billion-light-year discrepancy in my paradigm! And since you admit to believing in a god, you can’t rationally fault my God for being able to create stars & starlight in a single day!

As for biology, science is governed by a law that states life can only come from life. You’re welcome to arbitrarily believe scientists may some day discover a way to intelligently design life, but the Holy Bible has the only logical explanation for how life started. It also has a logical explanation for why cats make cats, & dogs make dogs: genetic code with limitations by design. If it were truly random as evolutionists believe, it would not be this consistent. I know it, you know it, every cat & dog breeder knows it, therefore it’s scientific whether you like it or not. Instead of credible scientific evidence for apelike animals evolving into humans, all you’ve got is an arbitrary assumption with a little homology thrown in for good measure. That’s a recipe for religion, not science.

So there’s a snippet from Geology, Astronomy, & Biology, which should suffice for a blog comment, not a rigorous scientific journal article, to demonstrate that there is not only credible scientific evidence supporting my belief system, but a more logical one at the foundational level for mine than for yours.

16) “acknowledge that the bible cannot be read literally, nbor [sic] as a scientific document, and stop trying to prove the bible.”

First, I’m not trying to prove the Bible. That’s a strawman argument. As a PhD, you should be a little more careful with your assumptions.

Second, I’m not claiming the Bible is a scientific document in the sense of a rigorous, modern science journal with footnotes & an exhaustive bibliography. That’s another strawman argument. If you want to objectively agree that “science” means “knowledge”, then I can easily argue that the Holy Bible contains beneficial, useful knowledge that can be proven experimentally (e.g., cats can only make cats, global flood via fossil-embedded rocks), thereby being a scientific document in that sense.

Third, sections of the Bible that were written as historical narratives should be read literally, so I won’t acknowledge the contrary & illogical position you’ve suggested. Sections of the Bible that were written as poetry should be read accordingly. Poems can record historic events but with symbolic language subject to figurative interpretation. I think you would agree with me that King Hezekiah had a literal encounter on the stage of history with Sennacherib, & that Sennacherib had literally destroyed many cities literally governed by Hezekiah, so you’re insulting your readers by hyperbolically asking them to acknowledge that nothing in the Bible can be read literally.

17) “if one is going to argue that the biblical account of creation is factual, one must present evidence.”

Again, that wasn’t the point of my initial comment, but I think the elementary points I just made from Geology, Astronomy, & Biology are sufficient starting points of evidence. Since your theory has no logical foundation, none of your so-called evidence is relevant. You can’t invent a god, & hypothetically say, “Humans evolved from apelike creatures, therefore my god is real.” You could, but you’d sound silly. Your god needs to be defined logically apart from your evidence. That’s the beauty of the only reliable, comprehensive record of human history: The Holy Bible. In the beginning, [this] God created [in this specific sequence with these specific design limitations]. Then I can look at Geology, Astronomy, & Biology, & see that they harmonize with my foundation.

18) “one must refute counter evidence”

I’m doin’ my dangedest. The law of Biogenesis, the laws of Thermodynamics, the laws of Motion … they give me great comfort. It must be a real bummer realizing that your whole foundation of life rests on an arbitrary assumption that goes against elementary laws of established scientific reasoning & facts. Homology? Transitional fossils? Radiometric dating that’s calibrated on assumptions? You call that evidence??!! If your theory contradicts known laws, your use of evidence is a misuse by definition!

19) “please show me the design limitations in the genetic code of which you are speaking. what research?”

I don’t have to show you incomprehensibly complex genetic code (only about 1% of the human genome has been analyzed by the Wellcome Institute anyway, so even they can’t show it to you!). I can show you a reliable biological record of cats making only cats; there’s no record of them ever once making something slightly different than a cat. Whatever variation of cat is born, it’s always 100% cat that any decent biologist would recognize as some sort of felid.

That’s why it’s so sad to hear abortionists act like imbeciles & say, “We don’t know where life begins.” Of course we do! Human life begins at conception when unique human DNA is formed & alive. We know it’s alive because of the destructive methods used to abort/kill it. It’s 100% human, & will never grow to become something other than 100% human, & that limitation is obviously by design. But I digress…

If you want to believe some imaginary apelike creature made your ancestor, be my guest, but I feel sorry for you & your make-believe heritage. I can trace my ancestry back to the literal hand of an almighty God, molding Adamic clay like a potter. With such recognition comes a tremendous responsibility to be faithful, & stand up for my faithful Creator & Savior.

20) “scientific evidence is quite consistent on the origin of species.”

Sorry, I’m not aware of any. I’ve heard about fossils of humans like Neanderthals & Cro-Magnons, & fossils of apes/monkeys like Australopithecus & Aegyptopithecus, & fraudulent fossils like Piltdown Man & Nebraska Man. I also know that creationists & evolutionists agree that species originate because of variations in offspring from the same kind of creature as they adapt to their changing environments. Again, not sure which evidence you’re referring to. Maybe you’re thinking of the artistic drawings of imaginary transitional forms that National Geographic & school textbooks enjoy publishing. Them artists is somethin’ else, ain’t they?

21) “if you wish to use the bible to counter scientific facts”

No, imaginary drawings are self-refuting, especially when their foundations are arbitrary & illogical. The Holy Bible offers the only logical, comprehensive history. It doesn’t need to counter imaginary “facts” such as the ones about non-life making life, random problems (i.e., mutations) generating complex information, & light stretching 93 billion light-years across an allegedly 13.7-billion-year-old universe.

22) “who was created first: humans or the rest of creation?”

I wasn’t there. According to the only logical source, humans were created on the 6th day (plants on the 3rd, stars on the 4th, fish & birds on the 5th, land animals with humans on the 6th). If it is possible (& it is) to harmonize the G2 account with G1, then that’s the right interpretation (logically). G1 is a compact overview of 6 days; G2 begins a detailed focus on God’s interaction with humans without recording a specific timeline. I’m confident they were recorded at different times by different people for different purposes, but ultimately from the same Source. Can’t prove it, but it makes sense. Same thing evolutionists have always told me about their theory, so it must be scientific, right?

Actually, I’ve heard that the tense of Hebrew verbs is a lot more ambiguous, & subject to interpretation-based-on-context than English is, especially back in the original texts without vowels & points where the words themselves were more ambiguous for foreign readers. So please don’t point to modern Hebrew scholarship to prove a logically contradictory interpretation of the text. It’s possible, but illogical. Stay with your evolutionary mindset: if it’s possible, that’s the right interpretation, even if the odds are astronomically against it being possible, & even if you don’t know how it’s possible to read the Hebrew text that way.

23) “how many animals were on the ark?”

The Holy Bible does not record an exact number, & it doesn’t really matter, does it? There’s plenty of geologic evidence to see that a global flood occurred, not to mention that Earth is still about 80% covered with H2O. Scientists have no problem speculating that vast floods occurred on Mars even though they haven’t found any bodies of water there, yet people like you will argue a global flood never occurred on Earth! But I expect that from someone with an arbitrary, illogical foundation for his beliefs, so it’s okay Dr. Cargill!

Feel free to keep your mind closed & not consider any other possible explanations for all the sedimentary layers filled with fossils of dead things that were buried so rapidly that in some cases their skin & blood cells were preserved in the rock! Keep telling yourself a global flood could not possibly have occurred. Keep telling yourself that some ancient Near East fiction writer got lucky that continental-sized floods had happened over the whole planet he/she had never explored!

24) “these should be simple answers if the bible is as factual as you say it is”

So simple a child could figure it out, if they were given a chance to consider it objectively without being force-fed a single interpretation that has no logical foundation (“Nothing expanded into everything billions of years ago with no purpose, then randomly formed incomprehensibly complex life, capable of reasoning that G1 & G2 are contradictory accounts…”).

25) “but you gave no evidence, and you gave no answers.”

According to Microsoft Word, I’ve typed over 4,000 words at this point. How many more would you like before you admit that you have an arbitrary, illogical foundation that is in many ways as absurd & unscientific as Barfield’s claims?

26) “Members of the academy must take individual responsibility and make conscious efforts to rebut examples of obvious disinformation whenever and wherever they arise.”

No such thing as “simple” cells, life only comes from life, 13.7-billion-year-old light can’t be separated by 80 billion light-years if they came from the same starting point, cats only make cats, disorder doesn’t create complex information, randomness doesn’t produce a logical-thinking theologian (even if he creates his own god as a philosophical rescuing device), etc. I’m not a member of any academy, but you’ve been consciously rebutted.

27) “We must counter irresponsible claims with measured responses, debunk and discredit them, and offer alternative theories from a spectrum of reliable scholars who, while they may at times disagree, can support their various claims with scientific facts, tangible data, and sound reason.”

Glad you threw in the “sound reason” part! Feel free to refute anything I’ve written above. For starters, to make it easy for you, let’s pick this one: Is it or is it not a scientific fact with tangible data that only life (with an emphasis on “only”) can produce life? If you say “yes”, then you’ve just “debunked” the only version of Evolution currently being promoted in Biology textbooks; if you say “no”, then you’ve just been “discredited” by every Biology textbook, & you’re making irresponsible claims.

Now I understand much better, why God uses the simple to confound the wise. The wise (acording to the worlds standard)seems to lean unto their own understanding, which is useualy secular education to prove or dis-prove scriptures. All Barfield is saying is, (let me dig to try and prove what I believe). It’s so easy to criticize his research when you have nothing to validate your criticism. Time will tell and if he is right, then try and unring the bell. Scriptures teach us that “Truth will spring forth from the earth”. I believe this will be done through archaeology. I say let him dig, and I know he has enough character to admit if he is wrong. Randy hahn